The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[ltseung888]

There is no extra energy. Your math's is crap and based on unmeasured assumptions. Where are your so-called measurements?

Hans von Lieven

Dear Hans,

Thank you once more for giving me a chance to teach the World some more Physics.  Actually this time it is more to do with Fluid Mechanics (or my MSc knowledge in Aerodynamics).

The most important equation quoted in the previous post is the following:
Eair-in = Pair-in x Vair-in

The proof that the average layman can understand is as follows:

(1)   Imagine a long inlet pipe of radius R
(2)   The area of the pipe will then be A = Pi x R x R  (area of a circle)
(3)   Assume that in 1 second, air that can go through the pipe at speed S
(4)   The force exerted on an imaginary thin disc across the pipe is F
F = P x A (force = pressure x area)
(5)   The work done in 1 second W
= F x S (work = force x displacement)
= P x A x S
(6)   (A x S) happens to be the Volume of air that goes into the system in 1 second
(7)   Thus we can say that the Work Done by air-in is
= P x V  (Pressure x Volume)
(8 )   Work Done is equivalent to Energy Available E
(9)   Thus Energy carried in by air is
Pressure-in x Volume-in
(10)   Thus we have the proof that
Eair-in = Pair-in x Vair-in

This vigorous mathematical proof cannot be wrong.  It is standard Physics taught in Fluid Mechanics and Aerodynamics.  Please consult your Physics, Fluid Mechanics or Aerodynamics professors at any of the top universities.

If the equation cannot be wrong, extracting energy from still air is scientifically possible.  The air+water air pump experiment is just the tip of the iceberg.

Lawrence Tseung
Understand the theory and then we know what to measure.

[ltseung888]

Highlights of the Productivity Conference (5)

Some additional points from the Keynote speech included:
The best known ways to increase Productivity Globally are:
(1)   Higher Wages as this will create more demand.
(2)   Lower costs as this will make the goods more affordable to the masses.
(3)   Higher Profits as this will attract more investment.

In Hong Kong, most owners object to paying higher wages.  Their argument is that paying more means higher costs.  The neighboring Countries, especially China, has much lower costs.  What pay the workers more?  One might lose ones competitive advantage.  For the individual inventors, they often receive zero or negative wages.  Negative means that they had to come up with money via savings, borrowing from relatives and friends etc.  This is what Wang referred to as going to Hell.

There is generally no disagreement in Lowering Costs from the Owners in Hong Kong.  However, there are objections from Workers.  For example, the Hong Kong Government tried to lower costs by subcontracting.  Many from the civil service objected.  For the individual inventors, they often cut costs to the bone.  For example, Tseung left the vigorous data validation of his water+air pump to others.  He had no blood to sell and would not to starve.  (He did survive on bread or rice porridge alone a few times).

Almost all owners want higher profits.  However, in a free, competitive environment, competitors will jump in as soon as they smell money.  It is difficult to maintain high profits unless you become a virtual monopoly. Most individual inventors hope that the Patent system would provide them with protection.  Wang was fortunate to have the Chinese Government as the backer.  His personal fortune is virtually secured.

[Mr.Entropy]

What exactly are you saying here? If the claim is provable, then why has it not been proven yet?
Or do you mean that the claim "water and air together can be pumped higher than only water" can be proven? Well, it might indeed.
But that's not the claim. The claim is that water and air together can be pumped higher than only water, and the SAME AMOUNT of water can be pumped without using more energy than a normal water pump would.

Getting water up several floors with a beach pump like the one shown is possible.Ã,  How much energy that takes is another matter -- but no one is going to measure that.Ã,  I'm sure Lawrence will show you how to calculate it ;-)

@Hans:

What's important is that the tube coming out of a beach pump is thin enough so that little units of water that block the tube will hold themselves together by surface tension.

If each stroke of the beach pump introduces 45mm of air followed by 5mm of water into the output tube, then that 45-5-45-5 pattern will be maintained all the way up.Ã,  The total weight of water in the tube, and therefore the pressure against the pump's output valve, will be 1/10th that of a tube entirely filled with water.Ã,  It is this pressure that determines how high you can pump.

Notice that even this has nothing to do with energy and overunity!Ã,  The pressure that that valve and other various components can handle depends only on the quality of their construction.Ã,  Why would anyone even think that pumping water to a great height demonstrates any kind of overunity effect?Ã,  Only because Lawrence seemed to imply that.

Finally, when you add more valves, they don't make it any easier to push the water up, but they do all help keep it from going back down, and this, again, is what determines how high you can pump, so more one-way values = higher pumping.Ã,  Your veins have one-way valves all through them for similar reasons.

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

[chrisC]

Highlights of the Productivity Conference (5)

Some additional points from the Keynote speech included:
....

blah, blah, blah.... tell us something real? Like measured and reproducible data? No more excuses like... 'can't manage electric drills'; 'leave others to verify', 'two mild strokes'...
No wonder you're so screwed up. You really have no idea what reality is outside your small brain, do you?

If you can even prove overunity, there will be plenty of $ for you and you don't have to be living in your virtual 'hell' believeing you're God and giving more excuses. So sad....

Please remember to take some medication tonight.

cheers
chrisC

[ltseung888]

Highlights of the Productivity Conference (6)

Another statement with great impact on the Conference Participants is:

See what others cannot see.

The example used was Newton.  Millions of people saw particles falling before Newton was even born.  They did not come up with the Laws of Motion.  Why would Newton achieve something that almost everyone before him had a chance?

Have Lee Cheung Kin and Lawrence Tseung achieved that same feat?  Almost every one before them pushed the swing or pendulum.  No one ever realized that gravitational energy could be extracted from that action.  Millions before them could have thought of the continued expansion into electron motion and Flying Saucer.  What was the magic?

See what others cannot see.

@Mr. Entropy
Try to see in the direction pointed to by Tseung.  Study the few equations and the proof.  Eair-in = Pressure x Volume.  Air is not a fuel but an energy carrier.  We can use its energy!

Lawrence Tseung
We can use Energy from Still Air - Leading Out Global Cooling.